Bibliographic record
Abstract
A book on courts in federal countries is a welcome addition to the literature on federalism.The judicial dimension of federations is one of the least studied aspects of comparative federal governance.This volume demonstrates that whatever the reason for this neglect, it cannot be the unimportance of the subject.In its role as adjudicator of constitutional disputes, the judicial branch of government in a federation -above all its highest court -can play a crucial role in shaping the balance of power between the orders of government in a federation.It is this aspect of judicial federalism that receives most attention in this volume.Another aspect of the subject is the organization and structure of courts in federations -the extent to which the division of judicial power parallels the division of legislative and executive power.This aspect of judicial federalism also receives attention in this volume.The only comparative book on court structures in federal countries is W.J. Wagner's Federal States and Their Judiciaries, published in 1959.Most of the world's federations did not exist when Wagner wrote his book.We need more systematic comparative study of federal court systems to gain a better understanding of how the organization of courts in federations affects the federal balance of power and the quality of justice.There is clearly more than one way of properly organizing courts in a federation.Some federal states, such as the United States and some of the Latin American federations, have highly dualistic court systems, while judicial structures are more unitary in Commonwealth federations such as Canada and India, and in civil law federations such as Germany.The way courts are provided for in a constitution and develop over time is shaped by historic circumstances and legal culture.Whereas no particular court structure is essential for a country to qualify as a federation,
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.632 | 0.571 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".